The Syrian domination of
Lebanese politics for the past 30 years gave every Lebanese politician an excuse
to blame “his” lot in life on the Syrian dominion in Lebanon. Whether “he” was a
politician by breed or creed, successor to a family line or experienced on a
demarcation line, representative of his people or appointed by his masters, a
loyalist or in the opposition or somewhere on the fringes, the Lebanese
politician always found a way to assign blame to others.

[The use of
“he” in reference to the Lebanese politician is because Lebanon officially
continues to ignore a feminine role in government; hence, office titles like
deputy or minister which could be easily translated to their feminine form in
Arabic when the holder is a woman, are used resolutely in their masculine form
even when referring to a lady representative in parliament; of course the
Arabic language allows such discretion and as Arabs we may be refractory to
progress. A minor digression but perhaps of some significance].

In the past, when a Maronite
president was unable to find (for lack of a better term) a cooperating Sunny
candidate to form a cabinet, the Lebanese people were told that the system of
confessional politics in Lebanon needed reform, hence the Sunni protest. When a
nominated Sunny prime minister (PM) was unable to form the cabinet, one of the
reasons thrown at the collective psyche was that he was awaiting a sisterly
inspiration [an acceptable form of foreign intervention in Lebanon, that
guarantees Syrian interests and disregards the Lebanese ones]. Subsequently,
the country would become frozen in time every time, until the mighty will of the
foreign regional power changes and its unholy spirit descends on the president
with a name or on the nominated PM with a list of names. This is of course a
personal read and others may see different excuses. Nevertheless, this
tragicomic scenario repeated itself over and over in recent history, yet
paradoxically not enough times to warrant a deeper examination of the roots of
the problem. Whatever the old constitutional pretext was that prompted such
behavior; it was presumably rectified in the Taef accord and the subsequent
constitutional amendments. The proof of that is in the trilateral agreement
among the president of the Republic (Lahoud), the nominated PM (Karami) and the
president of the Chamber of Deputies (Berri) on the nomination of Mr. Karami.
Presumably, Syria had nothing to do with that; for the troops and the
intelligence services are on their way out; add to that, the elevated level of
international scrutiny, which would have exposed such a flagrant intervention,
unless we want to believe that Syria was secretly given anew a different mandate
over Lebanon.

So was it really the Syrians
who always held the keys of internal affairs in Lebanon after the Taef reforms?
Nominating a PM, forming a cabinet and attending to the peoples’ needs? Or was
it the inaptitude of succeeding Lebanese politicians and their unwillingness to
level with the Lebanese people and to rise to the level of national duty in
their political performance that required direct Syrian intervention from time
to time, so many times, that it became a habit.

If it is not the Syrians who
are preventing the formation of a new cabinet today, who is then? The question
is asked of both sides: loyalist and opposition. Is it the leaders of the
security systems in Lebanon? With all due respect to some members in the
opposition movement, the opposition’s line on these individuals bordered on
absurd and is difficult to swallow. It is hard to believe that corruption began
in Lebanon with these six individuals rising to power with the implementation of
the Taef accord, as it would be stupid to think that if Walid Beyk was a
loyalist today in place of Lmir Talal, or ESheikh Pierre instead of Slayman Bayk,
their demands would be nobler and more relevant to the plight of the Lebanese
citizen.

“Perhaps the seeming inability
to form a cabinet is a strategy of the loyalists to remain in power by forcing a
delay of the parliamentary elections and extending the term of the currently
seated members.” This is of course a line borrowed from many a member of the
opposition who like to repeat it lately to impress upon their followers/readers
their ability to think beyond their nose and anticipate the next move of the
loyalists; oh, don’t you admire the strategic foresight of these opposition
leaders? [Of course I say that with cynicism]. The fact is that the
opposition leaders seem to be in disarray, hibernation or suddenly castrated [no
offense to the ladies, but until a week or so ago, all opposition leaders seemed
to have acquired “new balls” and sounded like born-again Christians in an
evangelical revival ritual].

Perhaps the opposition leaders
are debating among themselves issues not unlike those on the mind of Frangieh
and Arslan, very vital to their personal survival and the survival of their
blood line in politics. Apparently, they too were overwhelmed by the readiness
of the Lebanese people for drastic change [demonstrated on March 14th
in Martyr’s Square in Beirut], and wanted to slow down the people’s movement for
fear that the people wash them away in a swift revolution.

Where is Parliament in all
that? Isn’t it the legislative body who presumably has oversight to ensure
proper function of the administrative branch, yet it remains astoundingly quiet.
Can it intervene as a body to rescue the country from this administrative
stalemate and save the people from this unending childish saga? Did the Taef
accord and the amended constitution give the people (represented by Parliament)
enough powers to hold accountable the administrative branch? The Taef accord has
presumably reformed the Lebanese system of government in a manner satisfactory
to its negotiators; did it take into account the Lebanese people? The answer to
these questions must be NO; for if it is yes, then we are faced with a worse
scenario than we thought we had on our hands. For then, the legislature, the
last constitutional bastion, would have fallen into the abyss of corruption,
abandoning its duty to the voters and to the nation [but for a last minute
extension of its term, of course].

How can we hope then to build a
modern, reformed and democratic constitutional government with the corrupted
institutions of a decaying one?

Perhaps we should not even
attempt.

Let this dying republic go into
the dim pages of history and let us venture to build a new one based on secular
principles and fair representation, based on qualifications for office and
accountability to the people.

Let us do away with this
archaic system of personal and tribal interests and replace it with a new one,
one that puts the national interest above all other, one that redefines politics
in Lebanon into a service not an entitlement for all generations to come.

It will take an
extra-constitutional maneuver to do that and a new transitional government to
head the reform. Our history is living proof that we were never short of good
and decent leaders who are willing to sacrifice life and limb for their country.
Let us do it now once again for the right cause. Let us do it now for the sake
of posterity. Ours is a rare chance in history to make the right choices, let’s
not desert it; lest we want our nation [Lebanon, for those who think it is Syria
or the Arab world] to be shattered into the oblivion of confessional and tribal
fragments and into the inferno of unending wars simply to preserve the
entitlements of a few confessional lords [Amirs, Bakawet & Masheyekh].